IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.420/2019 (SC) BETWEEN:
SRI. K. P. SARVAJNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE PADMANABHACHAR R/A # 213/1, ‘SARVAJNA’ COLLEGE ROAD CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 010.
(BY SRI.NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. K. SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE KENDAGANNASWAMY 2. SRI. M SRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE MALLAPPA R/A 592, 9TH CROSS ROOPANAGAR, MYSURU.
3. SMT. H M JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O SRI K SADANANANDA 4. SRI. PRADEEP KRISHNA K.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O SRI K SADANANANDA ...PETITIONER 5. SMT. VARALAKSHMI K.S. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O SRI K SADANANANDA RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT # 20 VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU CITY - 570 009.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.3 AND 4 IN SC.NO.89/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MYSURU DISMISSING THE IA.NO.3 AND 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTING OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner, who is the defendant is before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 20.06.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.3 and 4 in S.C.No.89/2017 on the file of Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru,.
2. Petitioner is defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in S.C.No.89/2017 filed for evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property belongs to one Chikkaranojappa, the grandfather of the 1st plaintiff, who created family trust through a registered deed dated 15.04.1918, for the purpose of conducting poojas to the family dieties. Through the trust deed the suit schedule property is dedicated to the said family trust. Chikkaranojappa had only one son by name Kendagannaswamy - the father of the 1st plaintiff. First plaintiff is the adopted son of the said Kendagannaswamy. After the death of Kendagannaswamy katha of the schedule property stands in the name of the 1st plaintiff. It is stated that the suit schedule property was let out to the father of the defendant, Padmanabhachar.
4. On issuance of suit summons the defendant appeared before the Court and filed his written statement and also filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint disputing the landlord – tenant relationship. Further the defendant/tenant also contended that the trust deed is not operative in law and the plaintiffs are not trustees to the said trust. The 1st plaintiff filed objection to the application contending that the defendant admits paying rent to the 1st plaintiff and not denied existence of lease agreement dated 3.4.1991. After hearing the application, the Trial Court by its order dated 12.07.2018 directed the plaintiffs to place on record lease agreement dated 03.04.1991 if any, before the Court. Accordingly the plaintiffs along with the memo placed on record the said lease deed dated 03.04.1991 and also other documents of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the Trial Court by order dated 20.06.2019 rejected I.A.Nos.3 and 4 filed by the defendant herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents/plaintiffs are not the trustees of a trust established to manage the temple. Since the property belongs to the trust, only trustees could file the eviction petition. As the plaintiffs are not the trustees they could not have filed the present eviction petition. The petitioner also disputed the landlord tenant relationship.
7. From the impugned order it is seen that the plaintiffs have produced the lease deed dated 03.04.1991 and other documents. At this stage to proceed with the suit, the Court prima facie satisfied with those documents hence dismissed I.A.Nos.3 and 4. Whether the plaintiffs are the trustees, whether the suit schedule property belongs to the trust, are all matters for trial. At this stage, the said question cannot be gone into, since the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be considered having regard to the plaint averments only. The written statement averments nor the defence of the defendant would be of no relevance at this stage. Keeping open all the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, this petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms